The more generous you are, the more generous you must be, or you're the villain. Got it.
And their reasoning seems pretty straight forward:
* Microsoft sells developer tools (as well as giving away loads for free!).
* Microsoft has invested money into giving their products (both the free and commercial products) great python support.
* The level of Python support Pylance gives is a competitive advantage of the Microsoft product suite.
* Open sourcing means giving their competitors this functionality, and the competitive advantage will no longer exist.
Microsoft is running a business, not a charity. They don't have to open source everything so their (often closed source!) competitors can use it.
You don't see anyone complaining that Visual Studio itself (the older one, not VS Code) is not open source. It's only when MS began the whole "MS hearts Open Source" campaign that their actions (voluntarily) entered this kind of scrutiny.
There's no doubt that VS Code would not have acquired the level of popularity and success had it not put on the façade of being Open Source. It is the façade that is under criticism here.
I disagree - The VSC Codebase (and functionality contained in it) isn't easily ported into competitor products (the fourth point) while Pylance is fully portable by design (could be incorporated into competitor products instantly!).
Only if you consider the LSP standard (proposed and promulgated by MS themselves, made for and with VS Code) as not part of VS Code. My comment — "All of those reasons ... apply ... to VS Code itself" — includes LSP.
In fact, the only reason you can claim "while Pylance is fully portable by design (could be incorporated into competitor products instantly!)" is because of LSP!
Besides, it's not like competitor IDEs that have taken VS Code's codebase wholesale don't exist. Have a look at https://theia-ide.org/ for a start!
Not all LSP language servers are.
Just as the C# runtime can be open source, but not all C# programs are.
See, you're still talking about the code. I am (and have been) talking about _the whole project_.
Because this isn't about just the code of Pylance. Open Source doesn't mean simply "show us the source code!". Simply making a portion of your code viewable is not sufficient for one to proclaim they "heart Open Source".
And there is a closed-source product they have (pylance) which they have developed compatibility for.
Pylance is NOT part of VS code - It is compatible with it.
It rings very true.
And no, I didn't imply that FOSS supporters are freeloaders in any way. You got that impression probably because of loss in translation. Rather, people who criticize MS for not open sourcing a specific piece of software are moral crusaders, trying to force a company or anyone to totally comply with their moral standard.
That is not the argument you're seeing here. There is no claim that any portions of MS's other IDEs (like the older, unrelated Visual Studio) be open sourced. This is only in the context of MS playing the façade that VS Code is "Open Source" and "Microsoft hearts Open Source" that such decisions fall under scrutiny.
> And no, I didn't imply that FOSS supporters are freeloaders in any way. You got that impression probably because of loss in translation.
Perhaps, but I don't see how else to interpret "he will hate you for not giving enough".
> trying to force a company or anyone to totally comply with their moral standard.
1. I don't see force. I see criticism.
2. The criticism draws its legitimacy from an action MS took: they're the ones claiming they "heart" Open Source and that VS Code is Open Source.
Sure, MS doesn't have to Open Source this specific extension, or any part of their IDE. They don't even have to keep the IDE Open Source. But then, they need to stop calling it so when it isn't: https://underjord.io/the-best-parts-of-visual-studio-code-ar...
* Microsoft's Python language server (used by multiple closed-source products) isn't.
* The language server is compatible with VS Code.
* Microsoft is providing a free licence to the language server.
* Now people complain that it's not open source any more, because they provided a free licence to something compatible that is closed source.
So we can have a code base, not change any of the code or licence terms, and in the action of giving people a free licence for a compatible product, somehow the first code base is not open source anymore!
So according to your logic, a code base can remain static, with the same licence terms, and suddenly it's not open source anymore!
This is what OP means. They provide significant amounts of code into to Open Source, then provide a free licence to something closed source, and people call them fake and selfish unless they provide more stuff for free.
Not quite: https://underjord.io/the-best-parts-of-visual-studio-code-ar...
> Microsoft's Python language server (used by multiple closed-source products)
Citation needed on "(used by multiple closed-source products)".
> Microsoft is providing a free licence to the language server.
No it isn't: https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/4#issuec...
> ... any of the code ... | ... the first code base ... | ... a code base ... | ... amounts of code into to Open Source ...
You keep talking about the "code" / "code base". I'm talking about the whole project and how MS has been advertising itself. Open Source is NOT the same as "source available" and MS has not been advertising itself as "hearts source-available".
> ... more stuff for free.
Again, your perspective makes sense only if you think of "Free as in Beer" and not "Free as in Freedom". _Microsoft_ held _itself_ up to the latter standard, not random people on the internet.
And in both instances I mean free as in beer.
Microsoft hasn’t held itself up to any standard. It said it would contribute to open source, where did it say they would open source everything?
Just because a company releases something open source doesn’t mean that other free software they release has to have open source licensing and all code available. It also doesn’t mean that they suddenly hate open source.
Are Mongo, Kafka and Android are open source? Do their parent companies all hate open source?